We disagree on what constitutes socialism.

Yes, I base my argument on the Soviet model, while you base yours on the Chinese one.

The prevailing view is that the Chinese model is superior because it survived.

This leads us to a simple conclusion: there were things Mao managed to do that Stalin did not—actions that ultimately prevented the system’s collapse.

Mao built a rigid vertical power structure that has withstood Western attacks to this day; China held firm thanks to the foundations Mao laid.

In that sense, it is already not a predator.

Let’s break it down.

The fact is, the USSR did not engage in classic private foreign direct investment (FDI) because it lacked a market economy. Instead, it implemented large-scale state programs of economic and technical assistance. The USSR signed agreements with 37 countries and built around 600 industrial, energy, and infrastructure facilities.

That is what foreign economic relations between the USSR and other countries looked like—taking Africa as an example.

African nations did not pay in cash; instead, they used a barter system, supplying the USSR with goods produced in Africa that were unavailable in the Soviet Union. Similar economic arrangements existed with Cuba and the Warsaw Pact countries. Settlements were calculated using a notional unit of account.

Furthermore, the USSR exported socialism to each of these countries and subsequently provided unwavering support for that political system.

As for China: in my view, as long as capitalism remains a factor in foreign economic relations, that “aquarium” will be teeming with sharks! And it goes without saying—it is a rhetorical question—that those sharks couldn’t care less about socialism.

It is well on the socialist road, and while it has capitalists, they do not form a coherent political body.

I know you’re an optimist, Comrade—I’m not arguing with you!

China is a socialist country

I thought we had agreed that China has not yet built socialism.

Yes, I agree with you that Lenin allocated a great deal of time to the transitional period, but Stalin proved otherwise.

China isn’t an angel, but it isn’t a predator either.

Yes, not entirely a predator—I agree. It’s very simple: China will cease to be a predator once it completely eradicates the capitalists within its own country.

We seem to have agreed on that point too, Comrade. The question is whether China will manage to do so before it becomes a hegemon—or rather, to put it in terms that are clearer to you, before it becomes the one dictating the rules of the game. That is what worries me.

This does not mean they will deliberately accept deals they can benefit more from.

This does not mean they will deliberately accept deals they can benefit more from.

China isn’t acting as a predator.

I’m setting everything else aside and focusing solely on the Russia-China relationship.

Let me give you one example: when sanctions were imposed on Russia’s oil and gas sector, China agreed to buy more energy resources from Russia but demanded the price be lowered to match what Russian domestic consumers pay. Even Belarus pays more for Russian energy.

That is precisely the sticking point right now regarding the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline.

Putin is resisting for the time being, but I think that sooner or later, Xi will force him to cave—or at least that’s how it looks to me.

In essence, it’s blackmail—coming at a time when Putin has nowhere else to sell his energy resources but China.

Right, they aren’t predators; they’re angels with wings and halos… )))

It’s the same story with the logging China is doing in the protected Ussuri region. Under the Russian Constitution, all natural resources belong to the people of Russia, not China! China fells the timber in Russia and immediately ships it back to China. Doesn’t that remind you a lot of the resource deal between Trump and Zelenskyy?

Please read this carefully, Comrade. This is an Irkutsk publication, not the BBC. I highly recommend you go there—it’ll be a real eye-opener!

https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/658607/

Just don’t give me that double-standard routine again, Comrade.

They prop up cooperative agreements and don’t take away the autonomy from countries they deal with.

And who told you that a hegemon necessarily seizes foreign lands?

“A hegemon (from the Ancient Greek hēgemōn — leader, commander) is a state, political party, social class, or individual that possesses unquestionable superiority, exercises power, and dictates the rules.”

In case you didn’t know, after the 1917 revolution, the entire proletariat in the USSR was referred to as the hegemon. There are different kinds of hegemons, Comrade!

As for the DPRK, the WSJ still has their classic spin on it, but frankly the progress of the DPRK in recent years is undeniable, and the press profits from getting engagement. Reporting on the DPRK making progress is making some waves.

Let’s hope for the best! I have no issues with North Korea; they are true friends!

Sorry, Comrade, but you’re probably mistaken here…

You only have to look at how China conducts its foreign policy.

Take the relationship between China and Russia: Xi acts like a predator. Do you see what I mean? China dictates harsh terms. There is no question of an equal partnership—and there never will be. Xi acts from a position of strength. I also dislike the fact that China has moved into Siberia and is logging the protected Ussuri forests. I could show you a petition from the Ussuri people asking the state to put a stop to this outrage. I don’t like that China is building a chemical plant on the shores of Lake Baikal that will pollute the lake. Let them build that crap back home. China has completely pushed out Russian cars; some auto giants went bankrupt and are now forced to switch to manufacturing Chinese vehicles, which undermines Russia’s industrial potential and drags it into deeper dependence on China. Recently, the presence of Chinese companies in Russia has increased tenfold. It’s expansionism, Comrade! Domestic manufacturers are being squeezed out.

Thank God that Chinese factories in Russia have to follow the Russian Labor Code—people are forbidden from working more than eight hours a day. We certainly don’t need any “Chinese miracles” here!!

Do you seriously think that this kind of Chinese foreign policy allows its partners to feel like equals?

I was only talking about Russia; I didn’t even mention Africa…

When you consider—as you well know—that the Chinese are ardent nationalists, a certain picture of the future begins to emerge.

But in any case: a Chinese hegemon is far better than a US hegemon. By the way, I came across an interesting article:

https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/north-korea-economy-success-e80f7062

But honestly, whenever I see something positive written in the West about North Korea or China, it immediately puts me off. It makes me feel like there’s a catch.

Everything depends on the path China chooses when it becomes a hegemon! A great deal hinges on that.

I do want a revolution.

You are not the first person I’ve encountered on Western forums who holds such an opinion. On Reddit, you get banned for expressing views like that. And in Russia—a country that supposedly has no indigenous peoples—Platoshkin was nearly thrown in prison for holding just such an opinion.

The national project in the United States is from the indigenous nations and the colonized peoples living inside it

I understand you—you believe that the wave of protests will originate from indigenous peoples. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I hadn’t thought of that. Yes, that could be a real force.

We are not in the same era. It will not happen tomorrow, but it will happen, as the need is there.

This will happen when that force is able to stand up to the system. This can occur only amidst the ruins of capitalism. For now, however, it is nowhere on the horizon.

For the time being, capitalism maintains a firm grip on its positions.

These are not the same. There are similarities, of course, but the unique differences are the determining factor in why Gorbachev’s reforms failed while the socialist market economy is succeeding.

The reality here is far more prosaic: Gorbachev had no clear plan or strategy—indeed, there was absolutely no preparation whatsoever. Everything was literally being improvised on the fly. At the outset of Perestroika, no one was even contemplating capitalism or the dissolution of the USSR.

Gorbachev’s reforms were doomed from the start. And when the USSR eventually collapsed, its industrial sector crumbled right along with it, simply because all the factories within the Soviet Union were inextricably interconnected. Imagine an assembly line, but on the scale of ten separate enterprises: the factories scattered across the various republics were not self-sufficient; rather, they were entirely interdependent.

Comrade, I never claimed that the situation here was identical to what occurred in China—those are two distinct scenarios. I was merely discussing the general consequences that tend to arise from such processes. It is all relative.

Deng built; Gorbachev dismantled.

The United States sought to dismantle the USSR, not to foster its development—as was the case with China. This remained true whether the figure in charge was Khrushchev or Gorbachev.

As for the adoption of socialism in the near future being Utopian, I disagree.

From now on, I’m going to call you an idealist, Comrade… )))

For something like that to happen, society needs to be primed. Or do you think everyone is as understanding and knowledgeable as you are? In the West, no one has the faintest idea what socialism actually is. To them, socialism is something terrifying. If Trump calls Biden a communist, you can imagine what the average person in the U.S. thinks of communists.

For this to come to pass, socialist ideas need to be in vogue. Throughout almost the entire 19th century, the progressive intelligentsia debated the possibility of a socialist revolution; yet it was only a hundred years later—after a great deal of trial and error—that something of that nature actually took hold in the world in earnest.

As I see it, we are currently only in the nascent stages—a time when the socialist movement is just beginning to emerge globally—standing in opposition to a capitalism that has already passed through the stage of militarism, which Lenin identified as the final phase of advanced capitalism. Western capitalism is now smoothly transitioning into a phase of degradation—something, in fact, that we are witnessing with our own eyes right now. An era of chaos has dawned. Consequently, alternatives will be explored in the future, and that is when socialism may well prove to be exactly what is needed.

Perhaps this is simply because I have never lived in an area that has lost its socialist past, but rather than pessimism, I have only revolutionary optimism for the future.

Drawing upon my own personal experience, it seems to me that it takes at least one generation of young people to reformat the collective consciousness of a nation.

First and foremost, an educational reform must be implemented.

Now, tell me, Comrade: how exactly could such an educational reform be brought about in the United States in the near future?

Only through revolution. Do you want a revolution? I wouldn’t advise it! And in that scenario, it is highly unlikely that the United States would retain its integrity; instead, it would likely fragment into smaller pieces.

The legislative framework in the U.S. is structured in such a way that, if approached gradually, change is possible without a revolution. However, that “gradual approach” could easily drag on for a hundred years… Above all, a leader must emerge—someone who can rally the people behind them, someone in whom the public places its trust.

I look through my microscope, yet I cannot find even the faintest semblance of such a leader in the United States—not even at the cellular level.

If we do not achieve socialism in the coming crisis in imperialism, then we will see immense barbarism.

I have already realized, Comrade, that you are a fervent activist of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, I am not—I merely observe… )))

I have lost hope, Comrade, that truth can ever triumph over capital, for there is no justice in this world. At least I won’t see this…

It must be said that Gorbachev comparing the destruction of socialism and adoption of mass liberalization is not the same as the NEP.

The legalization of cooperatives during the era of M.S. Gorbachev represented an attempt to salvage the USSR’s deficit-ridden economy. The leadership drew upon the Leninist experience of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s, permitting market elements while preserving the fundamental principles of socialism.

Gorbachev did not, initially, intend for the collapse of the USSR or a transition to capitalism! The entire initiative was conceived along the lines of the NEP!

https://csruso.ru/publicistika/njep-i-gorbachevshhina/

to change our own countries to socialism.

That is a utopia, Comrade—in the near future.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about!

Yes, I did speak about different contexts as well. But the result is the same—regardless of which “NEP” it happens to be, and no matter what it is called: Perestroika, Glasnost, or “Pepsi and McDonald’s.” The Shock Doctrine is what it is called now; back then, Gorbachev dubbed it the New NEP.

A chasm is forming between the classes—one that widens with every passing year. What we are currently witnessing in China is the consequence of the NEP.

You claim that the process in China is now reversing. Okay—I won’t dispute that; I will simply observe.

I will reply to your other posts later.

The NEP did achieve its desired effect of socializing the means of production and centralizing them.

I already told you that I completely agree with this. If it hadn’t been for the NEP, civil war would have broken out again. The factories were then partially returned to the hands of their former owners. And what’s most interesting is that many of these owners, after the NEP was abolished, remained at the factories, not as owners, but as directors. Many small entrepreneurs emerged, and the workers were pacified.

As for the peasants, problems began immediately. Peasants in the USSR at that time were divided into three categories: “poor peasants,” “middle peasants,” and “kulaks.” The kulaks immediately seized the initiative, began exploiting the poor, and engaged in usury. They felt like local princes in the villages. The poor were their farmhands, the middle peasants their debtors. “Kulak” in English means fist. This person holds the entire peasant community in his fist. This term emerged after Stolypin’s reforms.

Kulaks and middle peasants refused to sell grain to the state because the market price was much higher than the state price. Italian barges were docked in Crimea, transporting grain to Europe.

I observed something similar during perestroika, when the market price was several times higher than the state price. When store shelves were empty, but the market was a paradise of abundance.

You probably remember those students who robbed the NEPmen in the 1920s. You’re talking to one of them now, but I’m from the 1990s, when, as a university student, I was underfed, starving, and didn’t even always have enough money for public transportation. I didn’t have decent clothes. For the first time in my life, I understood what hunger was.

Every morning, looking out the tram window at the luxurious boutique windows and expensive cars, I was filled with hatred for these people! Fierce hatred!!! I turned to crime. That fucking NEP ruined my entire life, because it all ended with me going to prison. And you can’t imagine how many millions of lives like mine have been ruined! Just like that, in an instant!

Just like in the 1920s and 1990s in the USSR, both NEPs smoothly transitioned from the intelligentsia into criminals, and from traders and speculators into the ruling class, so now we’re smoothly transitioning from dialectics to Freudian psychoanalysis. For me, the NEP isn’t the New Economic Policy; for me, the NEP is childhood trauma.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion, of course. It’s my opinion and that of many millions of others like me. Those who rebelled against injustice. Rebelled in a strange way, but rebelled! Probably because I was hungry.

We are now talking about the dark side of the NEP, no matter what the NEP is, red, white or green, the side effect of the NEP is the same everywhere.

You’ve probably read the interview with Stalin conducted by the “Tucker Carlson of his day,” haven’t you? … )))

In 1934, Herbert Wells traveled to Moscow and interviewed Stalin. This was a time when Stalin was personally orchestrating the genocide of the Ukrainian people; he barely had time to wash his hands—they were perpetually stained with blood… ))))

And what did Wells have to say after that interview?

“I confess that I approached Stalin with a certain degree of suspicion and prejudice. In my mind, I had constructed an image of a very cautious, inwardly focused fanatic—a despot, envious and suspicious, a monopolizer of power. I expected to encounter a ruthless, cruel doctrinaire and a self-satisfied Georgian highlander whose spirit had never fully escaped the confines of his native mountain valleys… All the vague rumors, all the suspicions—for me, they ceased to exist forever after I had spoken with him for just a few minutes. I have never met a man more sincere, decent, and honest; there is nothing dark or sinister about him, and it is precisely these qualities that explain his immense power in Russia. Before our meeting, I assumed he held his position most likely because he was feared; now, however, I understand that he is not feared—he is trusted.”

H.G. Wells

1934

Can you imagine just how cunning and insidious one would have to be to so thoroughly pull the wool over Wells’s eyes?.. )))))

And this is all the more remarkable given that Wells actually disagreed with Stalin on many points.

Wells also met with Lenin, though he wasn’t particularly fond of him.

Perhaps that was because, at that time, the results of the socialist revolution were not yet visible—only the revolution itself… the grain requisitioning and “War Communism.” Whereas by the time he met with Stalin, there were already concrete results…

I appreciate the recommendation, comrade, though unfortunately I can’t find it in English (yet).

Specifically for our conversation, I would like to briefly introduce you—in outline form—to the contents of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov’s book, The Flip Side of NEP (Обратная Сторона НЭПа):

Crisis Phenomena: According to the researcher, the partial return to market mechanisms did not lead to the long-awaited economic boom; instead, it triggered a protracted economic crisis.

Political Struggle: The transition to the NEP (New Economic Policy) exacerbated latent conflicts within the USSR’s party elite (during the 1923–1925 period), resulting in a fierce struggle for power.

Social Stratification: Economic liberalization led to the rapid enrichment of a narrow social stratum—the “NEPmen”—a situation that stood in stark contrast to the dire plight of the majority of workers and peasants.

As you can see, there exists a radically different perspective on the events of that era. Zhukov is an archivist; his work relies primarily on archival documents. In his books, every claim is substantiated by the figures and statistical indicators of those years, which form the core of the economic analysis within his work. The political struggle is evidenced in the minutes of party meetings, while social stratification is clearly visible in criminal police reports. One such report, for instance, describes the formation of a student gang in Moscow that specialized in robbing NEPmen. A great number of such motley gangs sprang up, triggering a rampant surge in crime.

Indeed, we know that between 1919 and 1921, “War Communism” was implemented at the behest of Trotsky. Both Trotsky and Lenin indulged in fantasies of a global revolution; they fully expected that a wave of socialist revolutions would erupt across Europe at any moment, and that the Red Army would immediately rush to their aid. Consequently, the army was effectively transformed into a “labor army.”

It was a truly terrible time for the workers and peasants. Soldiers were not demobilized from the army; instead, they remained under barracks conditions, working in factories and receiving no wages—only food and clothing. Yet, even these basic necessities the state was unable to provide in sufficient quantities. As the situation deteriorated, unrest and strikes began to erupt in the factories; workers refused to work. Measures had to be taken. To breathe some fresh life into the economy, War Communism was abolished and the NEP was introduced; however, as it turned out, this dawn was short-lived. As for the notion that the NEP was actually effective in the USSR—that was a myth later inflated by Gorbachev in order to push through his own hare-brained ideas.

All of this suggests that Stalin was open to criticism—that it was possible to argue with him.

According to the memoirs of a certain Marshal—I’ve forgotten exactly which one—during the war, when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow, Stalin and Georgy Zhukov got into such a heated argument during a meeting in the Kremlin that they ended up screaming at one another. This occurred precisely when a fateful decision had to be made.

In light of this, how can Stalin possibly be considered a dictator?

For everyone, this serves as a clear indication that Stalin was not the monster he is portrayed to be in the West—and not only in the West, for many in Russia hold that very same view. Had Stalin truly been a monster, he would have responded to letters like these by first having Sholokhov shot, then roasting him on a barbecue somewhere at a dacha near Moscow, and finally devouring him alongside Comrade Beria… )))

Stalin maintained a correspondence with Sholokhov almost until the very end of his life.

Mikhail Sholokhov was awarded the First-Class Stalin Prize in March 1941 for his renowned epic novel, And Quiet Flows the Don. The prize carried a monetary value of 100,000 rubles—a sum the writer promptly donated in its entirety to the USSR Defense Fund, doing so even before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War.

That is how true Communists conduct themselves… both of them!

Read the correspondence between Stalin and Sholokhov.

Sholokhov makes some very bold statements in it.

This is what you wrote about.

https://neodemocracy.blogspot.com/2020/10/from-correspondence-between-masholokhov.html

I’d read more Russian authors if more were translated into English. Sadly, it’s hard to come by

Finally, Comrade, you understand what I’ve been trying to explain to you for so long.

You tell me I’m subjective, basing my statements solely on my own experience, and I tell you it’s because you haven’t read the books I’ve read, nothing more.

And as we’ve already noted, the books I’ve read are somewhat different from the ones you’ve read, judging by your reaction to them. That’s why I kept saying that everything here is somehow different, seemingly in its place, but somehow different…

I highly recommend you read the works of this modern historian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Zhukov_(historian)

Here’s his book, which explains the fatal mistake the Bolsheviks made by not listening to Stalin.

The book is called: Stalin’s First Defeat. 1917-1922

In Brief:

This book recounts the early political career of the future leader of the Soviet Union. It tells how, during the years of revolution and civil war, he tried to preserve Russia’s unity, preventing its disintegration or fragmentation into national republics. It also explores who opposed him in this effort, and why Stalin was ultimately unable to achieve victory in such a brutal and uncompromising struggle. Based on unique archival documents, most of which have only recently been declassified, the book offers a completely new perspective on the events of those turbulent years. It provides a fresh perspective on questions that remain extremely sensitive today, convincingly proving the seemingly unbelievable: the views of Stalin—the third-largest figure in the Bolshevik Party in 1917—and Milyukov—the leader of the Cadet Party and ideologist of the “White movement”—were completely aligned on the question of what the country should be. The disintegration of Russia, as early as the spring of 1917, was initiated by the separatist aspirations of the Ukrainian Central Rada. In the spring of 1919, Stalin was removed from Moscow, barring him from participating in the leadership of the party and state until the end of the civil war; in 1920, there were no serious grounds for recognizing the independence of the Baltic republics; the USSR, in the constitutional form approved in December 1922 and which remained in effect until December 1991, was created over Stalin’s objections, in favor of the left-wing radical utopias championed by Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky.

He wrote many books, I recommend him to you. His first book was published in 1995; he was the first to publish it.

As for the person I am replying to, it’s really unimportant. Just a western anticommunist.

Regarding the “Holodomor”: I have a question for this anti-communist. What possible motive would Stalin have had for exterminating Ukrainian peasants, given that they were the ones producing the most grain in the USSR? I would only believe such a claim if it were on par with Putin blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline.

Such an act would be the behavior of a mentally unstable madman. It would imply that Stalin killed Ukrainians purely for pleasure—even at the cost of incurring economic losses. There is absolutely no common sense or logic in such actions. Why would he do it?

Incidentally, the Holodomor was not confined solely to Ukraine; that summer was marked by a severe drought.

That year, famine struck the Volga region as well, and affected several Eastern European nations—Poland, Hungary, and Romania, if I recall correctly.

As for the repressions and Stalin’s personal involvement in them: the peak of the purges occurred between the summer of 1937 and the autumn of 1938. During this period, the NKVD was headed by Yezhov. Following Yezhov’s arrest, he was succeeded by Beria, who—in an incredibly short span of time—ordered the release of a million people from prison.

Subsequently, a major public trial was organized to prosecute the very NKVD officials who had issued unlawful orders. The entire foreign diplomatic corps, as well as representatives of the international press, were invited to attend this trial. The court transcripts were published in the press.

This raises a pertinent question: what possible benefit could Stalin have derived from this entire spectacle?

Zhukov posits that the repressions were triggered by the “Stalin Constitution,” which envisaged free elections for local Party leadership positions. Fearing the loss of their posts, local Party officials began eliminating their rivals or engaging in excessive zeal to curry favor with their superiors.

Another significant contributing factor was the looming threat of a major war; the domestic political climate had become strained to the breaking point, and people began to view everyone around them as a potential Trotskyist or German spy. Furthermore, it can now be stated with certainty that a conspiracy was brewing among the military elite to oust Stalin from power.

Yet, at the very same time:

GDP growth during the 1930s stood at 14% per year.

By 1930, the USSR had already emerged as a global power.

The 1939 Census: According to the census results, the population of the USSR totaled 167 million people. Over the entire decade, the total population growth amounted to approximately 15 million people.

Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

I see a Russian surname and a title referencing the USSR. Comrade, I couldn’t find this author on the Russian version of Google—only on the English one.

Comrade, I strongly urge you not to rely on Western authors, even if they describe positive developments within the USSR.

If you are interested, you would be better off reading contemporary Russian authors instead.

I recommend this particular author to you; he is a highly renowned contemporary Russian historian with leftist views—someone who plays an active role in debunking myths about the USSR.

https://litmir.club/br/?b=904208

And I don’t understand who it is you keep mentioning and referring to here. Could you please explain it to me?